RE: One large tablespace.

If you just one large tablespace I vote for auto-allocate; otherwise I might go with one large object and one small to medium object tablespace using uniform extents. For the large object I would use an extent size somewhere between 5M and 20M depending on the object sizes. For the small object tablespace I would use something between 64K and 512K again depending on the sizes of the objects to be stored.

Probably 64K and 5M based on the initial 4M estimate.

HTH -- Mark D Powell --

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of bill thater Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 1:47 PM
To: Tom.Terrian_at_dla.mil
Cc: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: One large tablespace.

> 1. Creating 1 large locally managed tablespace (uniform extent size
> of 4m) with a datafile on each mount point for all of our data and
indexes.
> Interesting.
>
> 2. Creating lots of locally managed tablespaces with different
> uniform extent sizes (128k, 4m, 128m) with datafiles on each mount
point.
>
> Certainly option 2 is the more traditional approach but is there
> anything wrong with option 1. Is it slower? Harder to maintain? Any

> type of file locking problems?

you get the standard Oracle answer "it depends.";-)

the problem i can see with option 1 is that there would be a lot of lost space if the data doesn't fint into the 4m size. my preference is for option 2 for the reason i can taylor the extent sizes to match the type of data i'm putting in them. however this is a moot point if the data you're dealing with fits the larger extent sizes well.

--
--
Bill "Shrek" Thater     ORACLE DBA
       shrekdba_at_gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Zen is not easy.
It takes effort to attain nothingness.
And then what do you have?
Bupkes."  -- The Goddess
--

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l